Talk:Bite force quotient

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Animals Low‑importance Bite force quotient is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve : Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae ), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Mathematics Biology Low‑importance Bite force quotient is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is there a reason why the formula has such a redundant form, with that ridiculous exponent of 10 in the denominator?

The definition of BFQ given seems to be incorrect. The reference #1 misquotes reference #2, and this misquote is the source for the article's definition. Reference #2 defines BFQ as the regression of the ratio of bite force to body mass (not associated muscle mass). They set the average BFQ as 100. I think it should be changed, but maybe I'm wrong in this, so I'm bringing it up in a talk page rather than editing the article. Sadharan (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC) I changed the definition to match the regression definition. Sadharan (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not explain or talk about bite force or really even give us a good comparison of bite forces of differnet animals, which is what readers like me want to know. Of course small animals have high bite force for their size, but large size is necessary for a high absolute bite force. Chrisrus (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there not any hard data on bird, reptilian, or amphibian bite forces? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.219.199 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Chrisrus. It should be noted on this page that the BFQ (bite force quotients) reported in the Bite Club referenced journal article were not measured values. They are predicted values based on measurements of the animal skulls. This is very misleading as there are a string of sites that also quote the article but seem to have missed this very important piece of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elexsor (talk • contribs) 00:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it has units of N/kg^(2/3). I can't provide a peer-reviewered source, however, for this info. The basic reason is allometry. Bite force scales with weight, but the relationship isn't quite linear.

So a theoretical animal with a bite force of 100 Newtons and a mass of 1 kilogram would have a BFQ of 100 N/kg^(2/3). If it had a bite force of 400 Newtons, and weighed 8 kg, it would still have a BFQ of 100 N/kg^(2/3).

So this means that the approximate BFQs of various animals would be:

            Force     Mass     BFQ
  Human:       890 N    62 kg      57

  Predator X:  150 kN   45 mT     119

  Great white:  18 kN  2.4 mT     100

  Crocodile:  16.5 kN  470 kg     272
  Sarcosuchus: 108 kN  8.0 mT     270

  T. Rex:       60 kN  6.0 mT     182

  Deinonychus: 1450 N   73 kg      83

  Alternative
  Deinonychus: 8200 N   73 kg     469 (extremely unlikely)

  Macaw:       1668 N   1.2 kg   1477 (Apparently, macaws can generate 375 lb-force, with their skull built like a vice, making them so far off the scale that nothing in nature even compares)

  Soviet N1: 45400 kN  2750 mT   2313 (Alright, it isn't exactly a BITE force, it's the launch force of a moon rocket, but for sake of comparison, I put it here anyway).

This is my understanding of how this is computed, and typical values it should yield. Roughly speaking, this translates to how much pressure the animal can exert on its body. Similarly built jaws should have similar BFQs regardless of scale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.62.170.221 (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much .... if youre still here I'd be willing to work together with you to help improve this article. If not I will do what I can on my own but all I really want to do is make clear that the bite force has nothing to do with sharpness of teeth .... a human and a dog have similar bite forces, and even similar Bite Force Quotients, but a human bite is unlikely to do any serious damage. —Soap— 21:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for expansion

Much more data seems to be present on the Russian, Norwegian, and German articles .... but it's not clear that it's talking about precisely the same thing. Perhaps there is more than one formula for BFQ and we should address all of them here. —Soap— 21:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might just switch the table out for the Russian one, actually, and remove the one we have entirely since it could be confusing. Might as well synchronize with the other wikis. We can still mention the different formulas without assigning separate tables. —Soap— 00:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section on bite pressure? I know the American Alligator is frequently cited, but I'd like to see a comprehensive list of strongest bites.2601:346:C201:60C0:A55B:4E4F:1A:E12C (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]